Reversing an earlier denial of a preliminary injunction, the court granted summary judgment to plaintiffs and permanently enjoined a statute which made new residents of Pennsylvania ineligible for general assistance during their first 60 days in the state. The court applied strict scrutiny to the statute, but also found that the statute was unconstitutional whether a strict scrutiny or a rational basis review was used. The court rejected claims by the state that the statute enacted no penalty because other forms of assistance were available to persons denied GA. The court found that much of the allegedly available assistance was not available and that that which was did not ensure that denied GA applicants' basic needs would be met.
Plaintiffs' attorneys: Witold Walczak, ACLU, 237 Oakland Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-4090; Stephen Gold, Public Law Institute of Philadelphia, 125 S. Ninth Street, Suite 700, Philadelphia, PA 19107; Richard Weishaupt, Community Legal Services, 1424 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19102; Peter Zurflieh, Central Pennsylvania Legal Services, 213A N. Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101.
Davis v. Doth, File No. 62-C6-97-010231 (MN District Court, Ramsey Cy. Dec. 5, 1997).
The court has preliminarily enjoined a Minnesota statute that pays lower benefits to new residents of the state, based on the benefits available in their former states, for their first year in Minnesota. The court followed the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision in Mitchell v. Steffen, 504 N.W.2d 198 (Minn. 1993), which struck down a law that paid lower General Assistance benefits to new residents for their first six months in the state. The court also enjoined a "contingency plan" which was to go into effect in the event that the provision regarding lower benefits was enjoined. The contingency plan would have denied new residents childcare and access to education and training as a work activity and would have required immediate job search for new residents during their first year in the state.
Plaintiffs' attorneys: Anne Cofell and Ralonda Mason, St. Cloud Legal
Services, (320) 253-0121; Barbara Kuhn, Southside Legal Aid Office, (612)
827-3774; and Timothy Thompson and Anne Quincy, (612) 332-1441.
Sacramento County sought to reduce General Relief payments under a procedure established by California law. Under that procedure, a county must make a compelling showing to the Commission on State Mandates that paying the current level of benefits would result in significant financial distress to the county. The Appellate Court overturned a lower court decision which had permitted the county to go forward. The Appellate Court held: (1) the Commission's decision was quasi-judicial in nature, and therefore the court can apply a more searching "substantial evidence" review of the decision, (2) since receipt of General Relief by eligible persons is a fundamental vested right under California law, an even more searching "independent judicial review" is appropriate, and (3) the case should be remanded to the trial court for review under the correct standard. The Appellate Court sustained the court below in its construction of the term "significant financial distress," finding that it did not apply only to those counties that were worst off, and of other terms such as "basic county services" and "maintain."
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Appellants: Jennifer Horne, Brian Patrick
Lawlor, and Eugenie Denise Mitchell, Legal Services of Northern California,
517 12th Street, Sacramento, CA 95814; tel. 916-444-6760; fax 916-444-9684;
and Robert Newman and Richard Rothschild, Western Center on Law and Poverty,
3701 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 208, Los Angeles, CA 90010-2809; tel. 213-487-7211;
fax 213-487-0242.
As reported in the November 1997 Welfare Bulletin, in August 1997 the court had rejected plaintiffs' challenge to the elimination of the $50 child support pass-through and lifted an earlier injunction requiring continuation of the pass-through. Plaintiffs' counsel reports that on November 13th, the state Supreme Court granted their request for a stay of the court's order lifting the injunction. As a result, the state agency is in the process of reinstating the pass-through. Plaintiffs' appeal of the adverse decision is pending before the state Supreme Court.
Plaintiffs' attorneys: Amy E. Hirsch, Community Legal Services, Law
Center North Central, 3638 North Broad Street, Philadelphia, PA 19140,
tel. 215-227-2415; Sue Frietsche, Women's Law Project, and other attorneys.
This case, filed as a class action in November 1997, challenges the termination of the adult TANF recipients' benefits pursuant to a retroactive interim 24 month time limit that was adopted under a 1995 federal AFDC waiver. When the state adopted its TANF plan in October 1996 it opted to retain the waivers, and the waiver policies, including the 24 month time limit which began November 1, 1995, were included in subsequent state legislation. In June 1997 the state agency head notified HHS of the agency's termination of the waivers and the underlying research. Despite this decision to terminate the waiver, the state has continued to apply the retroactive time limit in TANF, with the result that in November 1997 some 3400 adult TANF households who had been subject to waiver AFDC with its time limit have now lost their share of the family TANF benefit. According to plaintiffs, over 70% of those who lost benefits are minority women. (Adults who had previously received non-waiver AFDC have a full 24 months of TANF benefits, with countable months beginning with the October 1996 implementation of the state's TANF program.) Plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion argues that application of the retroactive time limit which has a disproportionate adverse effect on minorities is a per se violation of federal regulations implementing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in that the retroactive time limit is barred by the federal PRA of 1996 unless waivers are continued and has no justification now that the experiment has ended.
Plaintiffs' attorney: William Morris, Arizona Justice Institute, 33
North Stone Ave., Suite 1601, Tucson, AZ 85701, tel. (520) 740-1207.
This case, filed as a class action on behalf of adult recipients and applicants for Emergency Aid to Elderly, Disabled and Children (EAEDC) and Transitional AFDC (TAFDC) against the state agency and HealthPro, the private contractor that makes disability determination, claims that class members' benefits are improperly denied, reduced or terminated as a result of illegal disability determinations and that the state agency has failed to monitor Health Pro and assure that it complies with applicable law and its contract with the state. The complaint alleges that because of the illegal disability determinations class members are required to work when they are unable to or to work against medical advice to get cash aid. Class members have lost benefits as a result of the defendants' abuses, including the failure to develop medical records by not obtaining treating the physician's record, substitution of HealthPro's assessment of residual functional capacity for the treating doctor's assessment, failure to provide notices in languages other than English and to offer interpreters for medical exams, and failure to provide transportation assistance to allow class members to attend medical exams. Plaintiffs also claim that the state agency, in making determinations of non-cooperation with work requirements, improperly refuses to consider a person's claim for a good cause exemption from the work requirement based on physical or mental impairments if a disability exemption has been denied. Plaintiffs claim that the defendants' actions violate state regulations, the Americans With Disabilities Act and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the state Consumer Protection Act, Due Process requirements of the state and federal constitutions, and the contract between the state agency and HealthPro.
Plaintiffs' attorneys: Jim Breslauer and Michael Raabe, Neighborhood
Legal Services, 11 Lawrence St., Suite 300, Lawrence, MA 01840, tel. (978)
686-6900; e-mail: bres@gbls.org; Brian Flynn, Greater Boston Legal Services;
Paul Osbourne, Reglante, Sterio & Osbourne; Ray Cebula, Disability
Law Center.
This case challenges under the state social services and education laws
and the state constitutional provision guaranteeing a high school education
to persons under 21 the policy of the New York City Department of Social
Services to assign nineteen year old high school students who receive welfare
under the state's general assistance program to
workfare that either conflicts with their school schedules or which
is so many hours that it interferes with their school work. Plaintiffs
have moved for class certification and a classwide preliminary injunction.
Plaintiffs' attorneys: Chris Lamb of the Welfare Law Center, Connie Carden of the New York Legal Assistance Group, (212) 750-0800, and Courtney Scott of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley, and McCloy.